The Speculist: The Meme that Continues to Unite the World

logo.jpg

Live to see it.


« Concentrated Solar Power: Another Great New-Old Idea | Main | Myths of Innovation »


The Meme that Continues to Unite the World

Say, did you hear the one about the clever German kid who gave a hand to the hapless, math-challenged American scientists?

A 13-year-old German schoolboy corrected NASA's estimates on the chances of an asteroid colliding with Earth, a German newspaper reported Tuesday, after spotting the boffins had miscalculated.

Chances are you did. It's all over the web. I saw it on both GeekPress and InstaPundit this morning (although Glenn did provide some very important follow-up information) and I note that it was the number one story on Digg Science this morning (having moved down to number three as of this writing.) Rest assured that we will hear about this in the late-night monologues this evening, especially if Leno's staff is tracking the story. And those people, whoever they are, who compose the e-mails that get forwarded to a long line of people which eventually leads to your mother/cousin/former-coworker-who-for-some-reason-keeps-sending-you-stuff, and then finds its way on to you, are working feverishly on several different versions of the story, which you will see many times over the next 15 years or so.

And, hey -- why not? It's a great story. So what if it's wrong...

Widespread media reports claim that a German schoolboy has recalculated the likelihood of a deadly planet-smasher asteroid hitting the Earth, and found the catastrophe is enormously more likely than NASA thought. The boy's sums were said to have been checked by both NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), and found to be correct.

There's only one problem with the story: the kid's sums are in fact wrong, NASA's are right, and the ESA swear blind they never said any different. An ESA spokesman in Germany told the Reg this morning: "A small boy did do these calculations, but he made a mistake... NASA's figures are correct."

So why does the original story get so much more attention than the retraction? For one thing, as Glenn points out in his follow-up, sometimes a dog really does bit a man. In fact, most of the time that's the way it happens. And it's just not that interesting. So NASA's math is better than this kid's. Big deal. I think their math was better than mine when I was 13, too.

But I think the difference in interest levels goes beyond the man-bites-dog angle. This story plays into a powerful and cherished meme shared by virtually all the peoples of the world: Americans are stupid*.

Since many of us know (or at least believe) that Americans are, in fact, stupid -- and since NASA has been plagued by some pretty significant gaffes in the past -- maybe this isn't a man-bites-dog story at all. Like any powerful meme, "Americans are stupid" seeks regular confirmation. Once it takes hold, its carriers are alert to any incoming information that might be relevant, and particularly that might add credence to the meme.

typicalamericans.jpg

Typical Americans, doing their thing

So it's a very subtle thing that's happening here. People spread this story under the guise of it playing against expectations, when in fact they're spreading it because it confirms their expectations. Maybe Americans are stupid, after all -- we don't seem to have as much intelligence as the memes we're slavishly carrying around. But then again, that applies not just to Americans. It's a trait we share with all of humanity.

Maybe it's time we just accepted our fate and welcomed our (certainly not new) memetic overlords. Or we can fight them. But when I compose blog-posts countering the "Americans are stupid" meme, am I being a bold independent thinker, or am I merely being carried along by a different memetic current?

The scary thing is -- I don't know.



* I just realized that I cited Digg Science in my original essay on this subject, and I don't want people to think that I am basing my assessment of what the world believes about Americans just on one website. If you're interested, do a Google search on 13 year-old german NASA. Now search Google News on the same search terms. As of this writing, you have to dig pretty deep into either of those searches before finding a retraction.

UPDATE: The Register retraction has moved to the number two position in the Google News search. Good work, Google!

Comments

And just what's wrong with ball-pit python wrestling?

:-)

Anyone who thought this story was true could easily be fooled again.

Interestingly though, it looks like the Internet Mind got it largely right this time. The retraction is spreading everywhere.

Physorg.com reported yesterday that NASA confirmed the boy's figures and they are usually reliable. I'm breathing a big sigh of relief right now.

I can't do the embedded links to former posts and comments- but ...

I recall you concluding that aliens are stupid. [Here's the link - Stephen] And the evidence is mounting that it is a commonly held belief that Americans are stupid.

Clearly- Americans are aliens.

Stephen --

And just what's wrong with ball-pit python wrestling?

I don't think it's been the same since it went all commercial.


MD --

Clearly- Americans are aliens.

Well, there is this one...

prohibit autonomous armed drones and at the same time clearly seeing that these very drones are being used by the U.S. Army in Iraq right now, Wired maneuvers itself on very thin ice. I don’t think it can support the arguments that promises, laws and policies are sufficient enough to protect us from a - what Wired deems nonexistant - danger. And heck, what is so bad about protesting against future dangers as opposed to only trying to fight seeing the effects of existing weapons like landmines in hindsight?

Post a comment

(Comments are moderated, and sometimes they take a while to appear. Thanks for waiting.)






Be a Speculist

Share your thoughts on the future with more than

70,000

Speculist readers. Write to us at:

speculist1@yahoo.com

(More details here.)



Blogroll



Categories

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2